Witness clears man....oops, too late!

Zurt

Banned
A decade after Ruben Cantu was executed for capital murder, the only witness to the crime is recanting and his co-defendant says Cantu, then 17, was not even with him that night.

The victim was shot nine times with a rifle during an attempted robbery before the gunman shot the only witness.

That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html
 
A little bio on Mr. Cantu ....interesting....


A loose band of tough kids called the Grey Eagles, of which Cantu became a leader, despite being rather small and in special-ed classes at school. By age 15, he was stealing cars for an organized auto theft ring, often spending days at a time driving stolen cars to Mexico for cash. At a time when the San Antonio Police Department was embroiled in scandal, with vigilantes and drug-dealing officers well known to the community, Cantu was stealing cars and dodging the police. His older brother had been arrested on drug and theft charges, but despite several run-ins with the police, Ruben was never convicted of anything before the November 1984 crime that led to his execution.

Convicted of armed robbery and murder

The prosecution's case at the trial that convicted Ruben Cantu is summarized as follows: On the night of November 8, 1984, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Ruben Cantu (age 17 at the time) and his friend David Garza (15), broke into a vacant San Antonio house under construction at 605 Briggs Street, and robbed two Hispanic males at gunpoint. The two victims, Pedro Gomez (25) and Juan Moreno (19), had been workmen sleeping on floor mattresses at a construction site, guarding against burglary, as a water heater had been recently stolen from the work site. The two victims were sleeping in their work clothes, with their pockets full of their cash earnings at the time of the robbery. Cantu and Garza were carrying a rifle, which they used to rob the two men of their wristwatches. As they tried to take their cash, they were interrupted by Gomez's attempt to retrieve a pistol hidden under his mattress. Gomez was shot at least nine times by the boys' rifle, dying instantly, and Moreno was also shot as many as nine times by the same rifle. Thinking they had killed both men, the two teens then fled the scene. Juan Moreno survived the attack, and was able to leave the house and call for help shortly after the event, though he lost one lung, one kidney, and part of his stomach.

Juan Moreno was the key eyewitness in the trial, eventually identifying Ruben Cantu as the killer in court, only to recant his story a decade after Cantu was executed.

Police allegedly pressure a witness after a bar fight

According to Juan Moreno, and consistent with police records, he was visited by police in the hospital the day after the shooting. But, due to the severity his wounds, he was unable to speak and could barely move. Five days later, in a second interview, Moreno was shown a number of photos. Cantu's photo was not included and Moreno did not identify any of the people shown in the photos. On December 16, detectives visited Moreno a third time and showed him another array of five photos, including one of Ruben Cantu, who lived across the street from Moreno's job site where the crime occurred. He did not identify Ruben or anyone else from the photos shown to him during that police interview.

The case went cold, and no suspect was arrested. About four months after the robbery-murder, there was an unrelated evening incident at the Scabaroo Lounge, a bar near Cantu's home. Officer Joe De La Luz, an off-duty, plainclothes police officer carrying two concealed weapons, claimed to have been shot by Cantu in an unprovoked incident at that bar. According to the account given by Cantu and corroborated by others at the scene, a dispute arose over a game of pool, De La Luz threatened Cantu, flashed a pistol, and did not identify himself as a police officer. Cantu, who was also armed, shot De La Luz. Officer De La Luz survived the shooting.

His friend, Sgt. Bill Ewell, re-opened the Gomez homicide case on the day of that bar shooting. On the following day, Sgt. Ewell sent an investigator to Juan Moreno a fourth time, this time showing Cantu's photo along with four others. Again, Juan Moreno did not identify Cantu as one of his attackers. But he did provide Cantu's name. One day later, a third homicide detective picked up Moreno (an undocumented immigrant from Mexico at the time), drove him to the police station, sat him down and showed him the same group of photos that included Cantu. On that final attempt, Moreno positively identified the photo of Cantu as being one of his attackers.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Cantu"]Ruben Cantu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_scales.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox scales.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png[/ame]

Somehow, I just can't drum up too much pity for this kid....maybe justice works in mysterious ways....
 
maybe legion troll can create 20 more threads about the same topic all the while avoiding the thread i created on it.....

:rolleyes:
 
Somehow, I just can't drum up too much pity for this kid....maybe justice works in mysterious ways....

So executing a man for a crime he didn't commit is OK, as long as you suspect he's guilty of something?

Thanks for making your position clear.
 
So executing a man for a crime he didn't commit is OK, as long as you suspect he's guilty of something?

Thanks for making your position clear.

I don't usually respond to Liberal Trolls, with asinine suppositions; but could you show where there is any proof that he didn't commit the crime?
 
I don't usually respond to Liberal Trolls, with asinine suppositions; but could you show where there is any proof that he didn't commit the crime?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a liberal, but here you are: "That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times."

What aspect of the above is confusing to you?
 
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a liberal, but here you are: "That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times."

What aspect of the above is confusing to you?

I guess I made my point.
 
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a liberal, but here you are: "That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times."

What aspect of the above is confusing to you?

And it only took a decade!!

Show me where Garza has admitted to being the shooter; because if he withheld evidence and/or testimony that would have proved Moreno innocent, then he should be tried for murder and executed.
 
And it only took a decade!!

Show me where Garza has admitted to being the shooter; because if he withheld evidence and/or testimony that would have proved Moreno innocent, then he should be tried for murder and executed.

You are correct, except that if he, too, is innocent, Texas will have murdered another man.

"Sam Millsap, who was the District Attorney presiding over the Cantu case, proclaimed himself a "lifelong supporter of the death penalty" in his commentary published in the San Antonio Express-News in the year 2000. In a December 2005 interview with the Express-News, Millsap expressed a newfound opposition to capital punishment. In that 2005 story, Millsap, an attorney in private practice at the time of the interview, says his decision to oppose the death penalty was affirmed, as evidence surfaced that Ruben Cantu was very likely innocent, when prosecuted by Millsap's office, and ultimately executed by the state of Texas. According to the 2005 Express-News story, "'It is troubling to me personally. No decision is more frightening than seeking the death penalty. We owe ourselves certainty on it.' He had that degree of certainty in the 1980s when he was the district attorney, 'when I was in my 30s and knew everything.' Now, he says, 'There is no way to have that kind of certainty.'" He went on to say that if Cantu was innocent, that means the person who committed the murder remains free and that "the misconduct by police officers could be addressed today."

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Cantu"]Ruben Cantu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_scales.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox scales.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5c/Ambox_scales.svg/40px-Ambox_scales.svg.png[/ame]
 
You are correct, except that if he, too, is innocent, Texas will have murdered another man.

"Sam Millsap, who was the District Attorney presiding over the Cantu case, proclaimed himself a "lifelong supporter of the death penalty" in his commentary published in the San Antonio Express-News in the year 2000. In a December 2005 interview with the Express-News, Millsap expressed a newfound opposition to capital punishment. In that 2005 story, Millsap, an attorney in private practice at the time of the interview, says his decision to oppose the death penalty was affirmed, as evidence surfaced that Ruben Cantu was very likely innocent, when prosecuted by Millsap's office, and ultimately executed by the state of Texas. According to the 2005 Express-News story, "'It is troubling to me personally. No decision is more frightening than seeking the death penalty. We owe ourselves certainty on it.' He had that degree of certainty in the 1980s when he was the district attorney, 'when I was in my 30s and knew everything.' Now, he says, 'There is no way to have that kind of certainty.'" He went on to say that if Cantu was innocent, that means the person who committed the murder remains free and that "the misconduct by police officers could be addressed today."

Ruben Cantu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course; no one that is anti-death penalty has their had in this retraction!!
 
charge the prosecutor with murder for making the wrongful case. They hold the power! They didn't do enough to verify the evidence.
 
charge the prosecutor with murder for making the wrongful case. They hold the power! They didn't do enough to verify the evidence.

I've said that if it's found that witnesses, the police, or the prosecutor willfully withholds evidence that would have exonerated the defendant and he was executed, that they should then suffer the same fate.

The anti-death penalaty proponents, on this site and others, have never accepted this solution; because they don't want anyone executed, no matter how terrible their crime was.
They would rather let the innocent public suffer, by having to support them, by having to provide FREE MEDICAL, FREE MEALS, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HOUSING, FREE CLOTHING, ETC.

With all the gnashing of teeth and wearing of the sackcloth, not one case has ever been proven that the person executed WASN'T guilty.
There has been specualtion, conjecture, assertions, and opinions; but not one case has ever been overturned.
Now, they'll say that it's because the person is dead and therefore no one will do anything; but if they truly felt the person was wrongfully executed, they could still present such evidence in a court and have the conviction overturned AND push to have those responsible for the wrongfull conviction brought to justice.
Odd that this hasn't been done, with the supposed THOUSANDS of cases that their bandwagon is tied to.
 
Back
Top